memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Gene Roddenberry
Negative bio? Isn't this a very negative biography of Gene Roddenberry? Half of the text is dealing with various misdeeds. I wouldn't want to remove the controversial issues, but it should be supplemented with some more pleasant data. - Bernd : I agree; this is an unfair portray of Eugene Wesley Roddenberry! :: Uhm, I believe that has been resolved about an eon ago. Ottens 17:15, 1 Dec 2004 (CET) Freemason Was Gene Roddenberry or is his wife a freemason? (Similar secular humanistic philosophy, the communicator looks like "square & compass"...) : Who gives a crap? How is that relevant? --Werideatdusk 05:51, 6 Aug 2005 (UTC) :: How is it not? -- StAkAr Karnak 21:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC) DYK suggestion *that in , Gene Roddenberry's words "Time is the fire in which we burn." were put in the mouth of Tolian Soran, the movie's El-Aurian villain? Find a source for this, then add to this article, then maybe re-add to DYK. -- Cid Highwind 23:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Unworking note Does anybody knows the reason why the annotation 1 in "Early life" paragraph, doesn't work? Gifhtalk20.04.2009 23:52 (UTC) :Fixed. It was due to mixing citation styles. -- sulfur 22:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Thank's! Gifhtalk21.04.2009 00:52 (UTC) TNG "Never would a science fiction series become so popular?" What is that about? Credits section "appearance" list This page's credits section used an "appearance" list incorrectly in a couple ways. First, the template form for the series (ex: ) is only supposed to be used at the head of a list of episodes from that series, not just any place you want the abbreviation with a colon after it. Use a regular link (TOS). Second, the counts that appear after branches of the tree in the appearance list are meaningless if leaves contain ranges of episodes. To use the list, the entire range should be added as a sub-list, otherwise the class should not be used. I've removed the class. --bp 07:07, April 6, 2010 (UTC) Missing Brackets in "Legacy" section sorry i got no clue about wikis, just delete this after reading the next line: in the chapter 'legacy' two brackets are opened but never closed, please fix this. :I removed both brackets, since they were poorly formatted and contained information that should be elsewhere. The whole "Legacy" section probably needs a bit of a rewrite.– Cleanse ( talk | ) 06:30, October 27, 2010 (UTC) Thanks, and sorry again for creating a mess! Gender agreement Time and again throughout TOS, and the spinoffs, and the movies the starships (every last one of them) are referred to in the feminine. Why then does the article state “Influenced by a fan write-in campaign, NASA even named its prototype space shuttle Enterprise, in recognition of the famed hero ship.” No matter how it reads (or sounds) I believe the text should read "the famed heroine ship." After all, we cannot go back and rewrite the scripts such that every reference is masculine. Responses/reactions. --ElizabethTlesTucker 12:34, May 9, 2012 (UTC) :Why not simplify that line even further to just "the famed ship"? -- sulfur 15:07, May 9, 2012 (UTC) :Cool!--ElizabethTlesTucker 15:45, May 9, 2012 (UTC) Roddenberry's views I know I'm not experienced, but should some stuff be put in on Roddenberry's influence on the show, particularly TNG, where he forced a particular plot to match his views and vision, such as 'The Bonding', Roddenberry's Box, etc., as well as DS9 and TNG running against his vision after his death ('In the Pale Moonlight', 'Section 31', likely the entire Dominion War) ? It seems relevant. 23:15, November 21, 2012 (UTC) Definition of "Mary Sue" On this page, a "Mary Sue" is defined as a term to describe "overly perfect original female characters" but in actuality the term refers to self-insertion of the author via a proxy to act out a wish-fulfillment scenario, as is indicated in the Wikipedia entry to which this page links. Writing Style If someone has enough time and cares enough, this article could seriously use a complete re-write. The style here is unnecessarily complex and superfluous. I mean no offense to the author, but this is quite frankly like reading a 6th Grader's paper when they're trying to extend 6 pages into 10. I honestly couldn't get through this. I kept skipping forward hoping that just one particular part was written this way, but it's the whole article. The syntax is off. Passive voice is used through out. Sentence clauses appear in the wrong order. I'll give just one example, because this is where I stopped reading: "In 1986, with Star Trek's 20th anniversary coming soon, and Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home hitting the theaters, then Paramount Television Group President Mel Harris decided it would be profitable to launch a brand new Star Trek series. Originally and obviously, studio executives wanted to create the series without Roddenberry's involvement, but eventually agreed that Star Trek creator Roddenberry should be on board for the project." This could be written more clearly and concisely as: "In 1986, soon after the release of "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" and just before the 20 year anniversary of Star Trek, Paramount President Mel Harris became interested in creating a new Star Trek series. Studio executives originally wanted to exclude Roddenberry, but later changed their minds." :Your comments are welcome, but if you feel the article could be improved, feel free to have a go yourself. --| TrekFan Open a channel 16:29, August 19, 2015 (UTC)